Im not sure if the aetp would have been able to have been completed in the relevant timeframe. US is retiring a huge amount of their refuelling force.
B21 will likely be based here, just not in RAAF colours.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
B21 will likely be based here, just not in RAAF colours.
Lolcake
Active Member
100% agree, with the outlay on the nuke subs, Seems prohibitively expensive to maintain a strategic bomber force too.
Hoping we get a foot into ngad which will replace capability lost with the F-111.
Last edited:
Early access to the Virginia class might have killed it. There might have been funding available in the early thirties and a requirement for a long range strike capabilty but that might be gone now.
SSNs with cruise and or hypersonic missiles is a pretty good long range strike capability.
History has shown tactical airpower to be more useful and more flexible than strategic. Every major war sees a return to tactical with strategic being a nice to have but not a war winner.
There’s only really been one war where strategic bombing (what I assume you are inferring by tactical vs strategic AirPower) has been unleashed, that being WWII. Where it has been assessed as being a decisive factor in the defeat of Germany. In fact, it set the key precondition for the invasion - air superiority (amongst others, such as dislocation of the landing areas through then dismembering of the rail network).
Aussie optimist
Member
Hi all I’m wondering everyone’s thoughts on whether it would be worthwhile for the RAAF to get another 24 super hornets as a seperate to any potential additional f35 buy. My reasoning is obviously the poor strategic outlook, the f35 backlog of orders and well obviously they have proven a good aircraft. I know there will be budget pressures but I feel there is appetite for “impactful projection” and as such I feel that money can found. Anyways I won’t claim to be an expert but interested to hear peoples thoughts on whether this would be a good idea or not.
cheers
cheers
Lolcake
Active Member
There is no chance of this happening. Super hornet production is to cease in 2025. At best existing fleet gets upgraded to Block III std to extend airframe life.
I would be cautious of saying there is no chance. As recent history has taught us things can change rapidly. Only half a decade ago people where saying (my self included) that there would be no chance of Australia getting SSN's but not the case now. Highly unlikely? perhaps, but zero chance? No one here knows, And if any one has any insight they won't be saying a thing about it.
Edit: This topic has been covered several times and at the end of the day none of us know's what will happen. Will we get more of them, will we retire the SH early and get more F-35's, Will we keep the same numbers but hold onto them for now, No idea. If we go for more F-35's then possibility will be a bit of a wait time on them, At same time if we hold of and wait for the F/A-XX then may be able to get a 6th gen platform (Should not this platform is meant to replace the SH and Growler around the same time we plan to actually replace our Growlers assuming that is still going ahead). Many options, most well covered, Now its wait and see.
Last edited:
There are ongoing arguments as to the effect of strategic bombing in WWII. Many books written by much more knowledgeable people than me.
Tactical air power has always been decisive, while strategic has never delivered the expected or promised effects. I'm not saying it has no effect, but rather that it has required a much greater investment, for less effect than anticipated.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty decisive.....(tongue in cheek Volk!)
I think it was Curtis LeMay who said, "now we don't even need to hit our targets".
With strategic bombing most of it is wasted effort. There are only so many targets that have critical impact on the enemies ability to fight. Once the low hanging fruit is gone, everything else is about attrition and terror.
The low hanging fruit has often been targetted by tactical strike aircraft and strike missiles, rather than fleets of heavy bombers. Ironically, heavy bombers have been most effectively used in recent decades for tactical operations. Terror bombing of civilians is now rightly seen as a war crime.
Lol, yep, Nukes revolutionised bomb sights!
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Suggest reading the book, “The Bomber Mafia”. Interesting info about the Norden bombsight development (precision bombing) versus the Harris/Lemay bomb and burn the crap out of them. Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo illustrate which concept won out.
(Heavy breathing) I find your lack of faith disturbing Volvo.
Plus the small thing about your lack of understanding of air power.
Plus, plus, I always credited a joint approach over empire building.
Plus, plus, plus, are our SSN not going to be busy fighting PLAN?
Plus, …. Range/Payload old bean!
Because we actually like Ukraine and wont be so mean as to dump that stuff onto them?
In all seriousness comes largely down to timing. Gov will be unwilling to reduce our own stocks by any meaningful amount untill the replacements come in which still some time away, So any we sent now hypothetically would be few in number requiring any annoying amount of upkeep effectively becoming a low availability resource drain.
If the allies had lost the war Bomber Harris would have been tried for war crimes.
(I’ve read this often but can’t remember references) exscusee moi!
There are stats out there on the casualty rates of aircrew, the cost as well as the opportunity cost of the heavy bombers.
There are legitimate arguments that the RAF bombing of civilian targets actually damaged the allied war effort.
Each heavy bomber consumed more materiel than four tactical, or air superiority fighters, or more than two, much more survivable, much more versatile twin engined strike fighter, fighter bomber, fast bomber or heavy attack aircraft.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Sorry @John Fedup , I wouldn't. I'd barely recommend that book for kindling. I mean, any book that says you need tailwinds to help heavy laden aircraft take off is going to tweak my aeronautical engineer brain and his ignorance of the RAF tweaks my historian brain, but it's quite wrong on many, many levels. I see it as trying to overlay the modern worlds fetish with 'tech bros' like Musk with a situation that is significantly complicated and more complex than most realise.
While this review and this review provide some of the healthy, thematic arguments against it, my absolute favourite is this twitter thread because of the sheer snark levels....
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
A case could be made against him but Nazis justice would be making a case against most allied colleagues as well. All would be potential trouble in the future.